The automobile engineering thread

You're confusing the existance of a tiny amount of human labor relative to the device complexity with a lack of automation because you do not understand the huge increase in complexity enabled by automation.

There are many human laborers working all day long in the factory. That isn't a "tiny" amount of human labor.

oh dear. The quantity of labor supplied increases because population increases. Its not like people stop working as we get richer. Instead they work a little bit less, but become orders of magnitude more wealthy because each hour of work they do is worth so much more. Its not the quantity that matters, its the productivity. Do not confuse 1 days work in a factory with one days work manually plowing a field. They are not the same thing.

Kalessin wrote:

But I don't see how replacing the human laborers in the plant with a fully automated process would "change the world."

Think about what you are saying. The world is composed of people. If you change what those people do, it is a different world with different possibilities.

Kalessin wrote:

Quote:

I would like to see you assemble a 4G baseband processor "by hand"...I suspect the ability to use lithography equipment will actually make a very big difference. Specifically it will enable you to build the device.

I'd like to see a taxi driver haul me and my stuff across town "by hand"... I suspect the ability to use a "car" makes a big difference too. But this is all beside the point.

No, it IS the point!

Technology amplifies human potential enabling new activities. Your suggestion of making a cellphone "by hand" is absurd because its technology that allows people to communicate using phones instead of by mail or in person. Believe it or not, people did move around towns before cars. It was just more expensive and slower, so they did less of it and over shorter distances. The development of cars lead to larger cities with more people in them.

Kalessin wrote:

redleader wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

I'm asking how it's going to lead to a changed world if you put your credit card in a self-checkout slot rather than handing it to the taxi driver.

A much larger number of people can travel much further for a given amount of money in a given amount of time in one area.

So when do you suppose the automated taxi will become better and cheaper than a low-paid taxi driver?

Probably 15-20 years, give or take. Its more a regulatory thing at this point.

Kalessin wrote:

redleader wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

How in the would you know what I've seen or not seen?

From the assumptions you make its pretty clear how much you have not seen.

How about leaving your usual "you don't understand as well as I do" posturing out of the Observatory? Just make your point.

If you don't want replies like that don't ask questions that require them.

Kalessin wrote:

Electronic access to remote archived information has had a huge impact (at least within my tiny area of responsibility). I don't actually use my cell phone that much in Massachusetts.

This seems like a great opportunity for you to make a valid point by describing how they have had a huge impact and changed your world to the extent that other revolutionary technologies have.

I've been predicting that an ideal PRT system looks like automatic-driving automobiles since before Google shook up that field....The remaining problems with PRT cum self-driving cars are: noncontrolled vehicles ubiquitous in the travel space; energy supply must be carried on-board; compliance with full automobile road standards that PRTs otherwise avoid.

So what do you think of the idea of "hybrid" automatic-driving vehicles, for example, they only operate in designated areas (e.g., carpool lanes, airport loops, parking garages) but you drive them yourself at other times?

If the "automatic" lane were fully segregated from normal traffic, you might consider allowing less stringent safety equipment (since you don't expect crashes), "loop" cars that are basically public-transit seats and never leave the lanes, and lots of other ideas.

But I don't see how replacing the human laborers in the plant with a fully automated process would "change the world."

Think about what you are saying. The world is composed of people. If you change what those people do, it is a different world with different possibilities.

The technology already exists to replace most of those factory workers with automation.

No it does not. Technology exists to replace some factory works with automation, and to augment others. You have such a strange idea of how automation works. Its about replacing human labor with machines, not necessarily replacing humans with machines. If you replace a guy at an assembly line with a guy running a more efficient machine at an assembly line, you have replaced some human labor but not necessarily replaced people.

Kalessin wrote:

Why then do we still use humans for those jobs?

Because we need them. The goal of automation is to build a richer world, not a world without people. Machines free up people to work more efficiently, not necessarily to stop working. Factories of the future will be more automated. They will still have people in them, just they will produce more per hour.

Kalessin wrote:

Maybe you need to read the questions a little more carefully before you make replies like that.

This is rich given your selective quoting and editing. I've at least taken the time to address your points. You could do the same.

Kalessin wrote:

redleader wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

Electronic access to remote archived information has had a huge impact (at least within my tiny area of responsibility). I don't actually use my cell phone that much in Massachusetts.

This seems like a great opportunity for you to make a valid point by describing how they have had a huge impact and changed your world to the extent that other revolutionary technologies have.

Why, did anyone here miss the "information revolution"?

The "information revolution" has been accompanied by stagnant or even falling real wages, limited productivity growth, and great economic uncertainty. As a benefits, you have given two examples:

"Not having to physically find information at an archive" and "not having to stay by a phone to receive calls".

These are not huge benefits. They're actually pretty marginal. Before I compared them to things like sanitation, industrialization, vaccination, and automobiles and concluded that they're not even comparable because the benefits are so insignificant. I would give up answering the phone on the go to be vaccinated against polio or to have a toilet. I would put up with libraries to have a car and affordable food. You apparently think they're bigger then I do and have said so. You could now explain how.

--------------------------------------------------------

That said, I think at this point you've mostly come around to my point, so I'm going to go back to the original disagreement:

Kalessin wrote:

We already have cars like that, they're called "taxis." But how would replacing human taxi drivers with automated ones change way the world looks?

The answer I think was best given by me earlier:

Are you asking why replacing human labor with machines changes how the world looks? Compare pre-civil war plantation agriculture to modern agriculture in the southern united states. Did changing how cotton is picked change how society was organized? How about pre-industrial England to post-industrial England? NYC before and after motorized transport?

Changing how society accomplishes production is actually a pretty big deal. Changing how you answer a telephone is not. The ability to remove a large amount of human labor from transportation will lead to vastly more efficient transportation, which will in turn to vastly different organization of people within society just as the ability to remove a large amount human labor from agriculture did a century or two ago. We build cities, towns, buildings, everything around the limitations of our transportation system. If you change those limitations, you change how you build these things.

And I stand by this. When you replace human labor (and please understand the critical distinction between labor and people) you end up with a richer world that has more possibilities because each hour of man's life can be used for more/different/better things. When you replace a hand reaper with a mechanical reaper you make food affordable and free up time for other things like education. When you replace a horse with a car you make transportation faster and more affordable. These things changed the world.

So to answer your question one more time, freeing up human labor spent on transportation will change the world by freeing up millions of extra hours every month that can be used for other activities (for instance, using your information revolution) and it will allow us to do different things with our transportation. For example, we can move parking lots away from malls, schools, business etc. This means that we can have more people frequenting a business. This means we can reallocate space in cities spent on garages for more productive uses. We can rethink how we position airports. We can rethink how public transportation should work. We can rethink things we haven't even thought of because we don't yet fully understand the implications of the technology. That is revolutionary.

Edit: Seriously, I take all this time to answer your post and you edit it to call me an "ass"? Grow up.

You are mistaken. They are assembled by a huge array of machines which are directed by humans. But one does not hand place the hundreds of millions of transistors in each iphone. They do not work at human powered looms.

Not to get into the debate, but this comment reminded me of this article talking about a factory which assembles USB memory sticks. It's interesting in this context, because one notable feature is that workers get boxes with stacks of bare-die flash chips, which they then remove from the box by hand (actually by modified chopstick), then place on a pre-positioned blob of glue on the PCB.

If the cars can drive themselves, don't they still have to drive themselves to a parking lot?

Why would they drive to a parking lot? Why wouldn't they just drive off to pick up another passenger? Self-driving cars are much easier to time-share. You're not trusting another person to drive your car, you're just letting them sit in it from point A to point B.

We already have cars like that, they're called "taxis." But how would replacing human taxi drivers with automated ones change way the world looks?

Quote:

Assuming you are not, then, timesharing your car... it is still easier to park. It can valet itself into tightly packed parking with other self-driving cars.

Ditto for automated valets.

Fair questions, but I'm projecting a little further down the road.

I think self-driving cars are going to work out like automatic transmissions. First, it'll be a luxury item. Then, it'll be common and a lot of people will simply prefer the automatic. Then, you'll have an entire generation grow up where most don't even learn the manual. After that, you won't be able to rent the manual (this will happen quickly when self-driving cars become viable, as it'll be a lot cheaper to insure for the rental company).

Once self-driving cars are the vast majority, the world will change pretty significantly. Variety in cars will reduce, because today's variety is largely driven by appeals to the driver. If you're not driving and only care about getting from point A to point B, do you really care about the HP and torque and turbo lag, etc.? The auto insurance industry as we know it will be gone, since there will be so few individual drivers to insure. Time-sharing (including taxis) becomes so much more viable (since you've eliminated the human variable) that it makes much less sense to even own your own car in a city of any significant size.

Finally, once self-driving cars have virtually taken over completely, it just makes sense for them to standardize on things like electric drivetrains that charge off the grid as they drive. The entire driving infrastructure would evolve to support that model. Not to say that Minority Report was accurate, but it's conceivable that some hybrid of roads and rails would evolve.

You are mistaken. They are assembled by a huge array of machines which are directed by humans. But one does not hand place the hundreds of millions of transistors in each iphone. They do not work at human powered looms.

Not to get into the debate, but this comment reminded me of this article talking about a factory which assembles USB memory sticks. It's interesting in this context, because one notable feature is that workers get boxes with stacks of bare-die flash chips, which they then remove from the box by hand (actually by modified chopstick), then place on a pre-positioned blob of glue on the PCB.

This is characteristic of how automation actually works. A series of machines and people in a fab make a chip. A person carries the chip and puts it in place with a dot of clue, and an automated wire-bonding machine does the actual soldering/bonding. In this example, people aren't actually replaced, they just make a hell of a lot more parts per hour, and the parts can be much more capable then someone doing hand soldering.

You can even see the next step: some kind of machine to put the glue in place. And you can see previous steps like integration of the controller IC into the flash IC. People think robots in factories doing everything, but in reality, thats not the case.

So what do you think of the idea of "hybrid" automatic-driving vehicles, for example, they only operate in designated areas (e.g., carpool lanes, airport loops, parking garages) but you drive them yourself at other times?

Entirely possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're likely. A road-owner would need to install them, at significant cost, and there would need to be dominant and mature standards for this to happen. More importantly, the traffic management system (and by extension road owner) would take liability for damages, and that seems like a hard sell.

There's a fictional treatment of such a toll 'autopike' in Varley's Red Thunder, in which the private vehicle is switched over to central control and introduced to the automated tollway only after having the automobile's self-diagnostics routine confirm equipment functionality such as tire pressure.

Quote:

If the "automatic" lane were fully segregated from normal traffic, you might consider allowing less stringent safety equipment (since you don't expect crashes), "loop" cars that are basically public-transit seats and never leave the lanes, and lots of other ideas.

We don't want segregated lanes for the same reason we don't want segregated pools of any single type of resource: one can become full while capacity exists on another, but those resources remain unusable.

Centralized control is unfortunately no guarantee against needing to comply with unnecessarily stringent passive safety standards, as demonstrated by the extreme safety standards demanded of passenger railcars in the U.S.

This is characteristic of how automation actually works. A series of machines and people in a fab make a chip. A person carries the chip and puts it in place with a dot of clue, and an automated wire-bonding machine does the actual soldering/bonding. In this example, people aren't actually replaced, they just make a hell of a lot more parts per hour, and the parts can be much more capable then someone doing hand soldering.

Today I think you'll find it's more common for a pick-and-place machine to place all of the surface-mount components on each fabbed PCB as it proceeds down the conveyor and into the reflow oven to solder them all in place.

So what do you think of the idea of "hybrid" automatic-driving vehicles, for example, they only operate in designated areas (e.g., carpool lanes, airport loops, parking garages) but you drive them yourself at other times?

Entirely possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're likely. A road-owner would need to install them, at significant cost, and there would need to be dominant and mature standards for this to happen. More importantly, the traffic management system (and by extension road owner) would take liability for damages, and that seems like a hard sell.

Imagine this kind of scheme on the I-5 as it passes through LA. Federal/State standards for participation, basic autonomous operation provided by the auto manufacturer, but the networked cars get additional traffic control input. Still a hard sell?

What do you think would be a more likely alternative, that auto-driving cars slowly make their way into the fleet as an extension of cruise control/accident avoidance assist type technologies?

M. Jones wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

If the "automatic" lane were fully segregated from normal traffic, you might consider allowing less stringent safety equipment (since you don't expect crashes), "loop" cars that are basically public-transit seats and never leave the lanes, and lots of other ideas.

We don't want segregated lanes for the same reason we don't want segregated pools of any single type of resource: one can become full while capacity exists on another, but those resources remain unusable.

Carpool lanes already work that way in a lot of places (like the California example above). You lose the ability to reallocate the lane if it's underused, but on the other hand you encourage the use of carpools (or vehicles with a carpool lane sticker), especially during rush hour when you really care. If people are resistant to auto-autos (I have no idea whether this is actually true) this could be one way to encourage their adoption.

What do you think would be a more likely alternative, that auto-driving cars slowly make their way into the fleet as an extension of cruise control/accident avoidance assist type technologies?

This is most likely, because it's technologically much easier, gives the driver a significant amount of time back, and is least frightening. Right now Google cars are having big problems with snow-covered lane markings and emergency vehicles. The freeway portion of my commute is kind of irritating in the sense that it requires little decision making on my part, but it also requires my undivided attention since I'm doing 80 six feet from the wall. And I really can't imagine letting go of the wheel in town where there might be pedestrians. Yeesh.

One of the keys to the taxi question is what % of a taxi's costs are labor and what are vehicle and consumables?

Well, we'll also have to assume self-driving taxis don't happen until self-driving tech is at the very least safer than the average human driver. In that case, it's not just the human driver, it's insuring the human driver and scheduling the human driver to be on the job when you need him.

And don't forget that ATMs used to be more expensive than a human teller. But they work 365/24/7 and don't form labor unions.

The problem is with the vehicles' electronic stability control system. These computerized systems help drivers to maintain control during abrupt maneuvers, especially on slippery surfaces. They work by automatically reducing power to the wheels and briefly applying the brakes at individual wheels to bring a skidding car back into line.

In some Honda (HMC) vehicles, however, the system can malfunction, causing the brakes to be applied unnecessarily. The vehicles being recalled are 2005 model year Honda Odyssey minivans and Pilot SUVs. Honda is also recalling 2005 Acura RL sedans and 2006 Acura MDX SUVs.

This is the sort of unintended thing that happens when a car is engineered to do something other than what the driver commands:

That's a curious opening line. It sounds like you think cars should not have ESC.

Cars should not be mandated to have ESC by governments[1], which is the case in the States starting with Model Year 2012. More generally, cars should not deliberately override the inputs of the drivers because the car believes it knows better than the driver. In this case the 'unintended' braking itself was not programmed but apparently due to damaged electrical components in the sensor chain. There are far more egregious examples -- generally from German automakers -- but the principle holds, regardless.

[1] Yes, I know Electronic Stability Control is often able to be disabled if you do a pirouette sequence with the controls. There are more important considerations, though; merely being able to allegedly disable ESC functionality doesn't make mandatory ESC an acceptable regulation.

Cars should not be mandated to have ESC by governments[1], which is the case in the States starting with Model Year 2012. More generally, cars should not deliberately override the inputs of the drivers because the car believes it knows better than the driver.[...]...merely being able to allegedly disable ESC functionality doesn't make mandatory ESC an acceptable regulation.

Anti-lock brakes (ABS) are also an example of a technology which (possibly) overrides the driver input. How is ESC conceptually different from ABS?

The worst-case scenario for ABS is when the car is going down a slope with a loose surface, where the car's mass at 0mph is enough to induce a skid. ABS detects the skid and releases the brakes from a wheel, when the optimum behavior might be to lock the brakes and let the skid happened until you come to a stop. Instead, you keep slowly sliding down the hill, which is not the end of the world in most cases.

The benchmark on these systems will be being better than average humans.

But that has to take into account best case, average case, and worst case outcomes. If the average case is better than 99.9% of humans, but the worst case is "everything goes catastrophically wrong because of the technology", it's not a clear decision.

ABS vs. perfect human braking is a matter of percentage. On the other extreme, if a self-driving car in manual mode decides incorrectly that the driver is about to hit another car, assumes control, and rapidly swerves... that would be very bad.

But that has to take into account best case, average case, and worst case outcomes. If the average case is better than 99.9% of humans, but the worst case is "everything goes catastrophically wrong because of the technology", it's not a clear decision.

I would prefer some sort of manual override, but I know that's not likely to happen.

I've had 2 cars with ABS (current and previous) and to date I have never once triggered it, despite having made a few emergency stops. As such, so far I can't say it has done much for me. That's not to say it never would, but I don't seem prone to needing it. I am, however, aware of the significantly increased risk ABS creates for me should I ever need to stop quickly on a loose surface such as gravel, sand, or snow. I'd very much like to have an 'override button' in those cases, as I certainly know better than the car what I need to stop when.

But that has to take into account best case, average case, and worst case outcomes. If the average case is better than 99.9% of humans, but the worst case is "everything goes catastrophically wrong because of the technology", it's not a clear decision.

I would prefer some sort of manual override, but I know that's not likely to happen.

I've had 2 cars with ABS (current and previous) and to date I have never once triggered it, despite having made a few emergency stops. As such, so far I can't say it has done much for me. That's not to say it never would, but I don't seem prone to needing it. I am, however, aware of the significantly increased risk ABS creates for me should I ever need to stop quickly on a loose surface such as gravel, sand, or snow. I'd very much like to have an 'override button' in those cases, as I certainly know better than the car what I need to stop when.

If you can't stop quickly don't drive quickly.

I'll take ABS every time.

On a timescale of milliseconds, humans can't meaningfully participate.

I've had 2 cars with ABS (current and previous) and to date I have never once triggered it, despite having made a few emergency stops. As such, so far I can't say it has done much for me. That's not to say it never would, but I don't seem prone to needing it.

a significant fraction of the country has to deal with wet, snowy, or icy roads. ABS helps tremendously. and even if you live in the desert, ABS is one of those things you don't know you need until you do.

Quote:

I am, however, aware of the significantly increased risk ABS creates for me should I ever need to stop quickly on a loose surface such as gravel, sand, or snow.

and that risk is...?

Quote:

I'd very much like to have an 'override button' in those cases, as I certainly know better than the car what I need to stop when.

I don't. But sometimes people blow through red lights/stop signs - disregarding not only the laws of man but also those of physics. ABS doesn't help you then, either.

Quote:

and that risk is...?

Significantly increased stopping distances under those conditions. ABS will sense a loss of traction and do precisely what it was designed to do - keep the wheels rolling. However in those cases more effective braking and significantly shorter stopping distance result from locking the tires and building up a wedge of loose material in front of them as the tires 'dig down' to a more solid surface below.

I'd expect you of all people to be aware of that.

I'm not advocating full time deactivation of ABS, but a temporary override button in cases where it's appropriate would be my preference. No ABS I'm aware of is smart enough to know when it's correct to allow the tires to lock and when it's not.

I'm not advocating full time deactivation of ABS, but a temporary override button in cases where it's appropriate would be my preference. No ABS I'm aware of is smart enough to know when it's correct to allow the tires to lock and when it's not.

My old Tahoe had a fuse for ABS, in the fuse box right under the driver side dash. Whenever I was going off-roading, or knew that I was going to be driving through a lot of snow/ice conditions, I yanked that fuse. The big knobby tires and voids were better at regaining traction when combined with threshold breaking, than ABS left to its own devices.

Of course, I was also commonly airing down tires a bit and dropping into 4wd at the same time, so in general it was about transitioning the vehicle from "normal operations" into "special situation". In my current ride, a Neon SRT-4 (hold yer snickering), I have never needed to yank my ABS, mainly because I *need* it to help in the ice/snow and rain with these tires and I don't ever really find myself off road or on bad surfaces much either.

I'm fine with a complicated series of button pushes, or yanking out a fuse to disable ABS or ESC on vehicles that are meant for "special situation" driving, like offroading or track days. I am also happy that all the other drivers on the road, have cars with ESC and ABS, because honestly, they need it. Not more than half need it, but more like 99.5% (or more) are better off for having it forced on them.

I am also happy that all the other drivers on the road, have cars with ESC and ABS, because honestly, they need it.

So am I. On the whole I think it's a huge net gain. But for anyone who actually knows how to drive and gives it the attention it deserves, the benefit is much less pronounced. That doesn't invalidate the overall gains it brings, but it's also wrong to think (or claim) ABS is an absolute benefit 100% of the time. It's not a magic bullet. There are times (while not common, also aren't extremely rare) when it's actively detrimental to stopping the car.

Ideally we'll end up with a system at some point that recognizes and compensates for that, but until that time my personal preference would be for some form of override switch that disabled ABS as long as it was pressed.

Quote:

guess that ends any interest I had in this thread.

OK.

Given your background I was honestly surprised you expressed ignorance of situations where ABS tends to fail at its intended job and actually works against the driver when they want to stop the car. Hence the comment, because if I had to pick any one person in this thread who I'd expect would know that, it would have been you.

Doesn't mean there's no cons, just that they're too small to change the decision. I don't even see the point in an override button, an emergency stop doesn't have time for that. If you need a shorter stopping distance, the best way is to choose a safe speed for conditions.

Doesn't mean there's no cons, just that they're too small to change the decision.

That's not what you said. You're the one who wanted to be pedantic, so it's fair to hold you to precisely what you said.

You stated you'd "take ABS every time". That means in every possible situation you'd want it. Which suggests you believe it is always superior and does not, at any point, work against your ability to stop. That is false.

If you're going to operate a vehicle responsibly, you should be aware of its performance limitations - including the limitations of any of those 'gee-whiz' safety features that may not always bail you out exactly as you think they will under certain conditions. Failure to do so has gotten people injured or killed in the past.

I realize most of the driving public doesn't do that, but that just makes them irresponsible operators.

Quote:

I don't even see the point in an override button, an emergency stop doesn't have time for that.

If you have time to hit the brakes, you almost certainly have time to shift your thumb an inch to hold a button on the steering wheel. If you don't have time to hit the brakes, ABS won't matter either and the button is irrelevant anyway.

Quote:

If you need a shorter stopping distance ABS, the best way is to choose a safe speed for conditions.

FTFY. These are equivalent statements, and both just as short sighted. As they say, sometimes "shit happens", even when someone is driving at a safe speed for conditions - a tree falls across a road, a vehicle crosses the median into oncoming traffic, etc. The alternative would be to limit vehicles to less than walking speed, and even that wouldn't be a complete solution.

I don't even see the point in an override button, an emergency stop doesn't have time for that.

If you have time to hit the brakes, you almost certainly have time to shift your thumb an inch to hold a button on the steering wheel. If you don't have time to hit the brakes, ABS won't matter either and the button is irrelevant anyway.

There might be time to shift your thumb, but how about: 1) recognizing the emergency situation, 2) deciding whether or not to disengage ABS, 3) shifting your thumb, and then 4) hitting the brakes?

And even if you had time enough, would it be like second guessing yourself at the last second on an exam? How often would you expect to make a better decision?

but how about: 1) recognizing the emergency situation, 2) deciding whether or not to disengage ABS, 3) shifting your thumb, and then 4) hitting the brakes?

That's not how I envision the system working. To clarify:

Point 1 happens when you decide you need to brake, which puts it outside the scope of the discussion (as the point of contention follows after that point - it's a given in either case).

Points 2 through 4 would matter in a system that is more likely designed as 'full time' on or off, and required activation prior to the application of brakes. The more logical implementation to deal with this shortcoming of ABS would be a momentary interrupt switch. Hold the button to suspend ABS for the duration, and as soon as it is released, ABS comes back into operation.

Quote:

And even if you had time enough, would it be like second guessing yourself at the last second on an exam?

Again, as stated, the times where ABS is of detriment and counter-productive are fairly narrow in scope and easily identified (by a human). If you are engaged in an emergency stop on a loose surface, ABS is active, and the car isn't slowing down, hold the button.

That leaves ABS functional by default, as it is, overall a good thing to have in the majority of situations. However it also allows the driver to recognize and act upon those situations where ABS is actually making things worse, and command it to step aside and get out of the way for the moment.

Quote:

How often would you expect to make a better decision?

Under the specified conditions, far more often than not. Which is considerably better than ABS, which will - due to limits imposed by current design and implementation - get it wrong almost every time under those conditions.

You stated you'd "take ABS every time". That means in every possible situation you'd want it. Which suggests you believe it is always superior and does not, at any point, work against your ability to stop.

That doesn't follow.

"I'll take ABS every time" -> "I will insist on every vehicle I drive being equipped with ABS to the extent it is practical to do so."

That's not an argument it's superior for every stop. That's a Bayesian assessment. Instances where it's worse exist but they have to be weighed according to their probability. Give me an example where ABS is worse and I still won't care because that accomplishes little other than plumb the depths of just how infrequent it is.

Raptor wrote:

If you're going to operate a vehicle responsibly, you should be aware of its performance limitations - including the limitations of any of those 'gee-whiz' safety features that may not always bail you out exactly as you think they will under certain conditions.

Being from Calgary I think we can assume I've been exposed to conditions you consider pathological for ABS, and have had enough exposure to it to have a pretty good idea of what it does under those conditions.

Raptor wrote:

Quote:

If you need a shorter stopping distance ABS, the best way is to choose a safe speed for conditions.

FTFY. These are equivalent statements, and both just as short sighted.

What's short sighted about assessing the risks of different alternatives honestly?

I think it would be short sighted to optimize for the false feeling of safety I'd have from more control rather than the actual reduced risk of systems that are better than humans at specific things.

but how about: 1) recognizing the emergency situation, 2) deciding whether or not to disengage ABS, 3) shifting your thumb, and then 4) hitting the brakes?

That's not how I envision the system working. To clarify:

Point 1 happens when you decide you need to brake, which puts it outside the scope of the discussion (as the point of contention follows after that point - it's a given in either case).

Points 2 through 4 would matter in a system that is more likely designed as 'full time' on or off, and required activation prior to the application of brakes. The more logical implementation to deal with this shortcoming of ABS would be a momentary interrupt switch. Hold the button to suspend ABS for the duration, and as soon as it is released, ABS comes back into operation.

Quote:

And even if you had time enough, would it be like second guessing yourself at the last second on an exam?

Again, as stated, the times where ABS is of detriment and counter-productive are fairly narrow in scope and easily identified (by a human). If you are engaged in an emergency stop on a loose surface, ABS is active, and the car isn't slowing down, hold the button.

That leaves ABS functional by default, as it is, overall a good thing to have in the majority of situations. However it also allows the driver to recognize and act upon those situations where ABS is actually making things worse, and command it to step aside and get out of the way for the moment.

Quote:

How often would you expect to make a better decision?

Under the specified conditions, far more often than not. Which is considerably better than ABS, which will - due to limits imposed by current design and implementation - get it wrong almost every time under those conditions.

The very notion that the average driver is capable of determining whether ABS is appropriate for the situation at hand in time for disabling it to make a difference is patently absurd. Most drivers couldn't remember to pump the brakes when necessary - now you want to add another decision point for people to encounter when they're caught by surprise, often beginning to panic, and white-knuckling the steering wheel? Most drivers already don't think to gear down on a downhill, turn their wheels when parking on a slope, know which way to turn out of a skid, or what to do if their throttle sticks.

I postulate that the population of drivers whose cars would be net safer with an ABS override button is an almost perfect match for the population of drivers who already build their understanding of ABS into how they drive under those conditions.

The only question that matters is: is a fleet with ABS comprehensively installed and active more or less safe than a fleet where it is sometimes absent? I am admittedly only going to assert that it is, since I don't have data to hand indicating such, but I will be shocked if my assertion is incorrect.

Note: I include myself solidly in the camp of someone who would not be more safe with such a button. Early last week I was driving in snowy/slushy/icy conditions, and had a car pull out through an intersection just in front of me (to be clear: I was on the through street, he had been sitting in the median, then drove out). His lack of traction meant he couldn't clear the lane fast enough, and I had to maneuver around him. I can assure you that slamming the brakes, steering around his tail, and not fishtailing out of control were more than enough to occupy me. I didn't have the mental werewithal to hit the horn, much less evaluate whether there was enough snow on the road as compared to ice at this particular intersection to determine the effectiveness of my ABS.

The very notion that the average driver is capable of determining whether ABS is appropriate for the situation at hand in time for disabling it to make a difference is patently absurd.

In a purely reactive situation, no. In a pro-active situation like "I'm about to take my Jeep off-road", maybe. Basically, any vehicle that might want the ability to turn 4WD on or off is also a good candidate for turning ABS off with the same ease.

Note: I include myself solidly in the camp of someone who would not be more safe with such a button.

I think the set of people that actually would be safer with such a button is a lot smaller than the set of people that think they would be safer. Humans suck at assessing risk.

Pont wrote:

In a purely reactive situation, no. In a pro-active situation like "I'm about to take my Jeep off-road", maybe. Basically, any vehicle that might want the ability to turn 4WD on or off is also a good candidate for turning ABS off with the same ease.

This argument can at least be entertained, but it belongs with features like lockable diffs.